Let's make Social Security solvent and sustainable

100-year-old Mary "May" Segal walks the track at the Duke Center for Living in Durham, N.C. Segal began attending the fitness center 35 years ago and was presented with a lifetime free membership for her birthday. When asked by a bystander what the key to longevity was Segal said, "Put Texas Pete on everything, just not your cake." (Jill Knight, The News & Observer, Associated Press)

It’s not so hard to figure out how to fix Social Security. Plenty of analysts have arrived at ways to keep the nation’s most successful government program from running short on money in 20 years. Many different combinations of policy tweaks would do the trick.

Trouble is, knowledge of how to fix something and the political will to go ahead with it are vastly different. Can a Congress that fights nearly to national default over raising the debt ceiling really accomplish something as long-range as making Social Security solvent?

Probably not. Members of the congressional commission charged with putting together a budget deal by Dec. 13 have been telling the nation not to expect a “grand bargain” — the kind of deal that President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner tried and failed to forge a couple of years ago.

That sort of bargain was supposed to incorporate long-term deficit reduction while putting big-money programs such as Social Security and Medicare on sounder footing.

Advertisement

But the effort fell apart, and the budget commission is looking to play small ball — just a budget deal that gets us past the next recurring crisis and on to the one after that.

That’s fine. No one really thinks Congress is capable of passing an all-encompassing package right now. Commissions that have tried — Simpson-Bowles, Domenici-Rivlin — find their work product gathering dust on some of the best shelves of Washington, D.C.

But Social Security doesn’t have to be part of a grand bargain. In fact, it’s best fixed as a standalone program. After all, it’s self-funded through a payroll tax — the problem being that the growth in retirees collecting benefits will far outstrip the growth of workers on payrolls in coming decades.

The right solution for making Social Security solvent would spring more from arithmetic and actuarial tables than from political ideology. It would lessen U.S. debt and make reaching other budget deals less daunting.

So we’ll give it a shot.

Sunday, we’ll suggest the approach that seems to the editorial board most practical, fair and perhaps even doable.

Today, we’re stipulating some of the principles and viewpoints that will guide a suggested fix:

• First, Social Security is fundamentally a good thing. It keeps our old people without great personal resources from rummaging through Dumpsters and eating cat food.

And the program is not making old-timers rich. The average benefit is less than $15,000 a year, and about a quarter of elderly recipients have no other source of income.

• We should not allow Social Security to start going broke in 2033, when, according to projections, it would have only about 77 percent of what it should pay out that year. A 23 percent cut in benefits would wallop those who depend on Social Security for a modest life of some dignity.

• We should preserve Social Security for the long haul. Today’s workers in their 20s or 30s should not feel as though they’re helping to support today’s retirees but that the program will not be there to help them when they reach retirement age. Let’s make Social Security solvent for 75 years, at least.

• Making Social Security solvent through tax hikes only, or through benefits cuts only, is no way to go. The former would slow economic growth and siphon off too much tax revenue that should go to infrastructure, defense and other ongoing public services. The later would break the promise we’ve made to provide a safety net for our elderly. Social Security will not be made solvent unless benefits are trimmed and more revenues — taxes — are raised.

• Overall, the changes in payroll taxes and benefits should be progressive in nature, meaning those who are well off should give up more than those for whom Social Security functions as a true safety net — those people who are getting by on $15,000 a year or less, and don’t have significant other resources.

• The sooner actions are taken, the more modest they can be — and still do the trick.

Why are we dealing with Social Security but not with Medicare, you might be wondering. Social Security is reasonably easy to fix. Medicare’s looming insolvency is a big, hot mess, and its solution beyond our ken. We’re not sure anyone can fix Medicare, in fact, so we’ll stick to what’s doable — and what we can grasp.